Project
Protecting the health of La Oroya's residents from toxic pollution
For more than 20 years, residents of La Oroya have been seeking justice and reparations after a metallurgical complex caused heavy metal pollution in their community—in violation of their fundamental rights—and the government failed to take adequate measures to protect them.
On March 22, 2024, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its judgment in the case. It found Peru responsible and ordered it to adopt comprehensive reparation measures. This decision is a historic opportunity to restore the rights of the victims, as well as an important precedent for the protection of the right to a healthy environment in Latin America and for adequate state oversight of corporate activities.
Background
La Oroya is a small city in Peru’s central mountain range, in the department of Junín, about 176 km from Lima. It has a population of around 30,000 inhabitants.
There, in 1922, the U.S. company Cerro de Pasco Cooper Corporation installed the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex to process ore concentrates with high levels of lead, copper, zinc, silver and gold, as well as other contaminants such as sulfur, cadmium and arsenic.
The complex was nationalized in 1974 and operated by the State until 1997, when it was acquired by the US Doe Run Company through its subsidiary Doe Run Peru. In 2009, due to the company's financial crisis, the complex's operations were suspended.
Decades of damage to public health
The Peruvian State - due to the lack of adequate control systems, constant supervision, imposition of sanctions and adoption of immediate actions - has allowed the metallurgical complex to generate very high levels of contamination for decades that have seriously affected the health of residents of La Oroya for generations.
Those living in La Oroya have a higher risk or propensity to develop cancer due to historical exposure to heavy metals. While the health effects of toxic contamination are not immediately noticeable, they may be irreversible or become evident over the long term, affecting the population at various levels. Moreover, the impacts have been differentiated —and even more severe— among children, women and the elderly.
Most of the affected people presented lead levels higher than those recommended by the World Health Organization and, in some cases, higher levels of arsenic and cadmium; in addition to stress, anxiety, skin disorders, gastric problems, chronic headaches and respiratory or cardiac problems, among others.
The search for justice
Over time, several actions were brought at the national and international levels to obtain oversight of the metallurgical complex and its impacts, as well as to obtain redress for the violation of the rights of affected people.
AIDA became involved with La Oroya in 1997 and, since then, we’ve employed various strategies to protect public health, the environment and the rights of its inhabitants.
In 2002, our publication La Oroya Cannot Wait helped to make La Oroya's situation visible internationally and demand remedial measures.
That same year, a group of residents of La Oroya filed an enforcement action against the Ministry of Health and the General Directorate of Environmental Health to protect their rights and those of the rest of the population.
In 2006, they obtained a partially favorable decision from the Constitutional Court that ordered protective measures. However, after more than 14 years, no measures were taken to implement the ruling and the highest court did not take action to enforce it.
Given the lack of effective responses at the national level, AIDA —together with an international coalition of organizations— took the case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and in November 2005 requested measures to protect the right to life, personal integrity and health of the people affected. In 2006, we filed a complaint with the IACHR against the Peruvian State for the violation of the human rights of La Oroya residents.
In 2007, in response to the petition, the IACHR granted protection measures to 65 people from La Oroya and in 2016 extended them to another 15.
Current Situation
To date, the protection measures granted by the IACHR are still in effect. Although the State has issued some decisions to somewhat control the company and the levels of contamination in the area, these have not been effective in protecting the rights of the population or in urgently implementing the necessary actions in La Oroya.
Although the levels of lead and other heavy metals in the blood have decreased since the suspension of operations at the complex, this does not imply that the effects of the contamination have disappeared because the metals remain in other parts of the body and their impacts can appear over the years. The State has not carried out a comprehensive diagnosis and follow-up of the people who were highly exposed to heavy metals at La Oroya. There is also a lack of an epidemiological and blood study on children to show the current state of contamination of the population and its comparison with the studies carried out between 1999 and 2005.
The case before the Inter-American Court
As for the international complaint, in October 2021 —15 years after the process began— the IACHR adopted a decision on the merits of the case and submitted it to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, after establishing the international responsibility of the Peruvian State in the violation of human rights of residents of La Oroya.
The Court heard the case at a public hearing in October 2022. More than a year later, on March 22, 2024, the international court issued its judgment. In its ruling, the first of its kind, it held Peru responsible for violating the rights of the residents of La Oroya and ordered the government to adopt comprehensive reparation measures, including environmental remediation, reduction and mitigation of polluting emissions, air quality monitoring, free and specialized medical care, compensation, and a resettlement plan for the affected people.
Partners:
Related projects
France’s Fracking Ban: Lessons for Latin America
By Eugenia D’Angelo, former AIDA intern, @DangeloEugenia Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—the process of drilling into rock and injecting a mixture of water, chemicals, and sand under high pressure to fracture it and release oil and gas—is making headway around the world, causing increasing damage to the environment and human health. Even so, social movements have been effective at slowing governments and corporations interested in expanding the practice. One of the best examples can be found in France. The first country to ban fracking, it did so thanks to the pressure applied by French citizens. Having lived in France for four years, I can attest first-hand to the strength and importance of social movements throughout the process. The Legal Process The ‘Jacob Law’ (named for Minister Christian Jacob, who presented it) was approved[1] in 2011, during Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency. It prohibits fracking for exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. Later, taking advantage of division in the Socialist Party, oil companies found the help necessary to present a constitutional challenge to the fracking ban. On October 11, 2011, however, the Constitutional Council reaffirmed the validity of the ‘Jacob Law,’ stating that it complies with all constitutional principles. France became the first country in the world to turn its back on the controversial practice. Making A Difference Civil society and green political parties played a paramount role in France. French citizens overwhelmingly said “No!” to fracking,[2] with more than 80% voicing their opposition[3] (this compares to 47% in the United States, according to the latest Pew Research Center poll[4]). In France, movements are grouped together in social collectives that unite the populations of different departments. These groups were organized to be present in every part of the country where energy companies had permits for the exploration and exploitation of shale gas and oil. They remained there for the entire legal and political battle, until the prohibition on fracking finally became reality. Some of the actions taken by the “No Fracking France” association include: During the famous and highly publicized Tour de France, they carried an anti-oil-and-shale-gas banner signed by thousands of people. In the final stretch of the Tour de France, they sent a climber to hoist the banner to the top of Mont Blanc. They held a press conference on the matter in the National Assembly. They organised various informative and scientific seminars for the mayors of affected communities. They produced a video explaining fracking to the deaf-mute community. They took their complaints to the members of Parliament. Resistance in Latin America In contrast, various countries in Latin America are opening their doors to fracking. In response to this troubling trend, AIDA is helping to facilitate and coordinate a regional group, made up of civil society organizations and academic institutions, created to generate information, stimulate debate, and join forces to prevent and stop the negative impacts of fracking in Latin America. At AIDA we consider it necessary for governments and civil society to apply the precautionary principle. Within the framework of this principle and its constitutional obligations, States of the region should adopt effective measures to prevent the risks and severe damage to the environment and human health that fracking can bring about. As long as there isn’t a guarantee that the risks and impacts of fracking can be effectively prevented and mitigated, this type of activity should not be permitted. Raising awareness amongst citizens and social movements is key. Countries in Latin America are obligated to generate public, truthful and impartial information about the characteristics, process and components of fracking, and about its long-term impacts. Our authorities must create plural and adequate spaces for civil society in the decision-making process about the future of fracking in our territories. If they don’t, we as citizens have the right and the obligation to engage and mobilize ourselves so that those who resist can hear us. [1] It was a closed vote in the senate with 176 votes in favour and 151 against. “Gaz de schiste: le Parlement interdit l’utilisation de la fracturation hydraulique”, Le Monde, 30/06/2011. Available at: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2011/06/30/gaz-de-schiste-le-parlement-interdit-l-utilisation-de-la-fracturation-hydraulique_1543252_3244.html [2] The Collectif 07 Stop Shale Gas and Oil said: “ …we should be proud of the efficiency of public mobilization which, although it has not won the war, has clearly won the battle. The commitment of millions of citizens, in our department and in the whole of France, that they demonstrated every day, resisted, informed, organized themselves, mobilized themselves…sometimes with the participation of the mayors…has borne fruit. It is a test that gives hope for the fight to come…” See: “Gaz de schiste: la mobilisation citoyenne a gagné une victoire, mais pas la guerre.” Bourg Socialisme avenir. Available at: http://www.bsavenir.fr/2011/10/01/gaz-de-schiste-la-mobilisation-citoyenne-a-gagne-une-victoire-mais-pas-la-guerre/ [3] This percentage is higher than that against nuclear energy (the primary source of energy in France) according to: Chu, Henry. “Pressure builds against France’s ban on fracking,” Los Angeles Times, 22/06/2014. Available at: http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-france-fracking-20140622-story.html#page=1 [4] http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/13/3591891/pew-poll-voters-oppose-fracking/
Read more
Report from the Ramsar Conference
It’s a worrying and undeniable fact: 76 percent of the world’s wetlands have been destroyed in the last 40 years. In Latin America, these sensitive ecosystems suffer degradation from extractive industries, tourist activities, real estate projects, and other human causes. AIDA helped ensure that these threats were recognized as a priority concern of the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands, during its 12th Conference of Parties. The Conference took place from June 2-9 in Punta del Este, Uruguay. AIDA and other civil society organizations included the risks in a public declaration presented before representatives of the various governments. The Ramsar Secretariat incorporated these threats into the Convention’s Strategic Plan 2016-2024. “This recognition opens the way for investigations to be made and guidelines established to combat the problem,” said Sandra Moguel, an AIDA attorney who attended the Conference. “By contributing to the identification of causes for the deterioration of wetlands, we’ve laid the base for the adoption of regulations and other effective measures to conserve these important ecosystems.” Alongside local organizations, AIDA also presented a petition to alert the Ramsar Secretariat that the Colombian government has failed to fulfill its obligation to protect the country’s páramos, high Andean wetlands. In the petition, we call attention to the impacts that activities such as large-scale mining have on páramos—the source of more than 70 percent of the water in Colombia—and ask the Secretariat to monitor the situation and take action according to their abilities. The Strategic Plan also recognizes the need to have better synergy with other international environmental treaties—such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—so that the sustainable use and conservation of wetlands attains greater relevance and is carried out more effectively. This correlation is key. “One of the greatest challenges of the Convention is to appropriately and effectively link the implementation of the treaty with the fight against climate change,” said Carlos Lozano Acosta, an AIDA attorney who also participated in the Conference. Lozano Acosta reported that one resolution was approved that calls on countries to reserve the quantity of water necessary for the preservation of their wetlands, and another that links the protection of these ecosystems with the mitigation of natural disasters, since wetlands are a natural barrier against hurricanes and storms. But Lozano Acosta lamented the fact that the Conference remained without sufficient and adequate space for civil society participation. For Moguel, it was a success that—thanks to the efforts of Latin American representatives—all resolutions adopted at the Conference recognized and included in their text the wetlands management done by indigenous people based on their traditional knowledge. Finally, in a parallel event organized by the International Coral Reef Initiative, AIDA attorneys presented their work defending reefs in the Americas. Particularly, they shared our Guide to Best Practices for Coral Reef Protection and emphasized the cases of Cabo Pulmo and the Veracruz Reef System, both sites in Mexico at risk from tourism and port development, respectively.
Read moreBelo Monte: Determined to achieve justice
By Flavia Amaral, AIDA attorney As construction of the world’s third-largest hydroelectric dam, Belo Monte, moves forward, social impacts and unrest continue. In the coming few months, close to 2,000 families are scheduled to be relocated from their homes in Altamira, on the Xingu River in Brazil, to newly built housing. Last year, another 2,000 families were resettled. The reconfiguring of the region continues to create social ills. The new settlements are far from downtown Altamira, and there is no public transportation. Many new houses are already showing structural problems, and there is little to no basic infrastructure such as health care centers, schools, and sewer treatment facilities. Also, as part of being relocated, a family must agree that they have no complaint or concern with the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant or the company responsible for the construction, a difficult ask for many who are giving up so much. For many indigenous communities, there is an explosion of illegal logging on their lands. Norte Energia,the consortium building Belo Monte, has not implemented required monitoring systems or constructed surveillance stations which would deter the logging. As a result, FUNAI, Brazil’s government agency that oversees Indian rights, reports that the situation is critical, and especially serious for the lands of the indigenous Arara people. Throughout the area, demonstrations continue by those who seek justice, recognition and compensation. Last month, hundreds of farmers held protests demanding land tenure, credit, and improvements to family farming. Two people died after being hit by a car that broke the blockade of protesters. This situation represents the unease, unrest, and violence that permeates the region. Clearly, the construction of Belo Monte has caused enormous impact in the Xingu River Basin – well before it’s operational phase. Four years ago, on the request of AIDA and partner organizations in Brazil, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights took an important step forward for the people of the region. It requested that the Brazilian government adopt precautionary measures to prevent irreparable damage to the rights of indigenous communities whose cultural integrity and way of life were at risk from the construction of Belo Monte. Clearly, after all these years, these threats remain: Brazil has not honored the precautionary measures. AIDA will continue working until we ensure that the environment and the rights of communities in Brazil’s Xingú River Basin are fully respected. We believe that the Commission still has time to act, and that there is potential for the Brazilian government to reframe its policies and practices to become a global model for equity and justice. Thank you so much for your ongoing support of our work for the people and the environment of the Amazon!
Read more